Cargando…

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions

Consensus regarding which modality is optimal for the measurement of pancreas cystic lesions (PCLs) was not achieved although cyst size is important for clinical decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) compared with computed tomography (CT) and magn...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Yoon Suk, Paik, Kyu-hyun, Kim, Hyung Woo, Lee, Jong-Chan, Kim, Jaihwan, Hwang, Jin-Hyeok
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4616797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26469901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001666
_version_ 1782396715158994944
author Lee, Yoon Suk
Paik, Kyu-hyun
Kim, Hyung Woo
Lee, Jong-Chan
Kim, Jaihwan
Hwang, Jin-Hyeok
author_facet Lee, Yoon Suk
Paik, Kyu-hyun
Kim, Hyung Woo
Lee, Jong-Chan
Kim, Jaihwan
Hwang, Jin-Hyeok
author_sort Lee, Yoon Suk
collection PubMed
description Consensus regarding which modality is optimal for the measurement of pancreas cystic lesions (PCLs) was not achieved although cyst size is important for clinical decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) compared with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring the size of PCL. A total of 34 patients who underwent all 3 imaging modalities within 3 months before surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The size measured by each modality was compared with the pathologic size as a reference standard using Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The mean size difference was 1.76 mm (ICC 0.86), 7.35 mm (ICC 0.95), and 8.65 mm (ICC 0.93) in EUS, CT, and MRI. EUS had the widest range of 95% limits of agreement (LOA) (−17.54 to +21.07), compared with CT (−6.21 to +20.91), and MRI (−6.82 to +24.12). The size by EUS tended to be read smaller in tail portion, while those by CT and MRI did not. When the size was more than 4 cm, the size on EUS was estimated to be smaller than on pathology (r = 0.492; P = 0.003). Although 3 modalities showed very good reliability for the size measurement on PCL compared with corresponding pathologic size, EUS had the lowest level of agreement, while CT showed the highest level among the 3 modalities. Therefore, the size estimated by EUS has to be interpreted with caution, especially when it is located in tail and relevantly large.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4616797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46167972015-10-27 Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions Lee, Yoon Suk Paik, Kyu-hyun Kim, Hyung Woo Lee, Jong-Chan Kim, Jaihwan Hwang, Jin-Hyeok Medicine (Baltimore) 4500 Consensus regarding which modality is optimal for the measurement of pancreas cystic lesions (PCLs) was not achieved although cyst size is important for clinical decisions. This study aimed to evaluate the properties of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) compared with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in measuring the size of PCL. A total of 34 patients who underwent all 3 imaging modalities within 3 months before surgery were evaluated retrospectively. The size measured by each modality was compared with the pathologic size as a reference standard using Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The mean size difference was 1.76 mm (ICC 0.86), 7.35 mm (ICC 0.95), and 8.65 mm (ICC 0.93) in EUS, CT, and MRI. EUS had the widest range of 95% limits of agreement (LOA) (−17.54 to +21.07), compared with CT (−6.21 to +20.91), and MRI (−6.82 to +24.12). The size by EUS tended to be read smaller in tail portion, while those by CT and MRI did not. When the size was more than 4 cm, the size on EUS was estimated to be smaller than on pathology (r = 0.492; P = 0.003). Although 3 modalities showed very good reliability for the size measurement on PCL compared with corresponding pathologic size, EUS had the lowest level of agreement, while CT showed the highest level among the 3 modalities. Therefore, the size estimated by EUS has to be interpreted with caution, especially when it is located in tail and relevantly large. Wolters Kluwer Health 2015-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4616797/ /pubmed/26469901 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001666 Text en Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle 4500
Lee, Yoon Suk
Paik, Kyu-hyun
Kim, Hyung Woo
Lee, Jong-Chan
Kim, Jaihwan
Hwang, Jin-Hyeok
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title_full Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title_fullStr Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title_short Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Computed Tomography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Pancreas Cystic Lesions
title_sort comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for pancreas cystic lesions
topic 4500
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4616797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26469901
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001666
work_keys_str_mv AT leeyoonsuk comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions
AT paikkyuhyun comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions
AT kimhyungwoo comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions
AT leejongchan comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions
AT kimjaihwan comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions
AT hwangjinhyeok comparisonofendoscopicultrasonographycomputedtomographyandmagneticresonanceimagingforpancreascysticlesions